On 7/30/2025 7:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 30/07/2025 15:53, Nitin Rawat wrote:

quoted

On 7/30/2025 6:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

The binding for Qualcomm SoC UFS controllers grew and it will grow
further.  It already includes several conditionals, partially for
difference in handling encryption block (ICE, either as phandle or as IO
address space) but it will further grow for MCQ.

See also: lore.kernel.org/r/20250730082229.23475-1-quic_rdwivedi@quicinc.com

The question is whether SM8650 and SM8750 should have their own schemas,
but based on bindings above I think all devices here have MCQ?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Hi Krzysztof,

If I understand correctly, you're splitting the YAML files based on MCQ
(Multi-Circular Queue) support:

Not entirely, I don't know which devices support MCQ. I split based on
common parts in the binding.

quoted

-qcom,sc7280-ufshc.yaml includes targets that support MCQ
-qcom,ufs-common.yaml includes common properties
-qcom,ufs.yaml includes targets that do not support MCQ


In future, if a new property applies to both some MCQ and some
non-MCQ targets, we would need to update both YAML files. In the current

No

quoted

implementation, we handle such cases using if-else conditions to include
the new property.

Hm?

quoted

For reference, only SM8650 and SM8750 currently support MCQ, though more
targets may be added later.

Are you sure? Are you claiming that SM8550 hardware does not support MCQ?

Offcourse I can say that because I am working on Qualcomm UFS Driver.

quoted

Regarding the patch
lore.kernel.org/r/20250730082229.23475-1-quic_rdwivedi@quicinc.com,
instead of using two separate YAML files, we could use if-else
conditions to differentiate the reg and reg-name properties between MCQ
targets (SM8650 and SM8750) and non-MCQ targets (all others).

It's a mess already and you want to make it messy. I already responded
on that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof